Smt. Anju  Datta-Roy,

d/o. Haripada Datta-Roy,

626/1/1/1, Sarat  Chatterjee Road, P.S. Sibpur,

District –Howrah,----------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

Versus   -

1.            M/S. Greenland Construction,

represented by its parters Asim Mukherjee,

s/o. Narayan  Chandra Mukherjee

and Shaikh Munna, son of late  Shaikh Sirajuddin,

having its office at 17/1, Kuchil Sarkar Lane,

P.S. Bantra, District – Howrah.

2.            Swapan Mukherjee,

3.            Moloy Mukherjee,

                both sons of late Hirendranath Mukherjee,

                of 33/3/2, Kashinath Chatterjee Lane, P.S. Sibpur,

                District – Howrah.--------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

The instant case was filed by complainant   U/S 12 of the  C.P.  Act, 1986,

as amended against the O.Ps.  alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ),  2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the O.Ps. to execute and register the deed of conveyance with respect to the schedule mentioned flat and to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lacs for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 1 lac for enhanced price of registration and the litigation costs of Rs. 50,000/- as the o.ps. in spite of receipt of Rs. 3,45,500/- out of the total consideration money of Rs. 13,86,000/- as per the agreement dated 15-06-2011, did not execute the deed of conveyance.

The o.ps. by filing the written version challenged the maintainability of

the complaint and contended interalia that the agreement subsisted for only four months from 15-06-2011 and the as the complainant did not pay the balance amount of Rs. 10,46,000/- within the period, the question of registration of sale deed does not arise ; that the o.ps. had to invest of huge amount of money for construction of the building ; that the contractual period of agreement already expired. 

3.            Upon pleadings of both parties three  points arose for determination :

Is the complaint maintainable before this Forum ?

Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.            POINT NO. 1

                                Since the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and since there are catena  of decisions from the Hon'ble Apex  Court with respect to the identical disputes, we are of the view that the complaint is quite maintainable before this Forum. The point no. 1 is accordingly disposed of.

5.                            POINT NOS. 2 & 3 :

                Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Admittedly the agreement for sale of the flat in question was executed on 15-06-2011 and admittedly the complainant paid Rs. 3,45,500/- as the earnest money. On scrutiny of the enclosures it appears that the complainant demanded the relevant papers from the o.ps. for placing the same before the bank authority for obtaining house building loan to defray the balance amount. In spite of repeated requests the o.p. no. 1, the constituted attorney of the rest of the o.ps., did not supply the same within the stipulated period of the agreement. On the contrary, the o.ps. adopted the plea of expiry of the time only to disentitle the complainant. This amounts to gross deficiency in service together with the conduct  which comes under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as unfair trade practice.

                                In the result, we are of the view that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. As the complainant paid only Rs. 3,45,500/-, her prayer for huge compensation cannot be entertained. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.              

                Hence,

                                                                O     R     D      E      R      E        D

                That the C. C. Case No. 62 of 2012 ( HDF 62 of 2012 )  be  and the same is allowed on contest with costs as against the o.ps.

                The O.P. no. 1 be directed to execute and register the deed of conveyance with respect to the schedule mentioned flat in favour of the complainant within three months from the date of this order after receiving the balance amount of Rs. 10,46,000/-.  

                The o.p. no. 1 be further  directed to supply the relevant papers to the complainant to facilitate the sanction of loan before the bank authority within 15 days from the date of this order.

                The complainant be directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 10,46,000/- within two months.

                The o.p. no. 1 do pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant for causing prolonged mental pain and harassment.

                The complainant is further entitled to litigation costs of Rs. 5000/-. 

                The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

                Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.